Abstract
Background
Over 96% of primary total hip replacements (THR) recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) are performed through a posterior or lateral surgical approach. There is no high quality evidence available to support the use of one approach over the other in primary THR and even less evidence when the outcome of revision THR is considered.
Methods
Questionnaires were sent to 267 patients who had revision hip replacements between January 2006 and March 2010 for aseptic loosening. They rated their pain from 0–10, and used the Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction Scale (SAPS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Short form-12 (SF-12).
Results
We performed 275 revision total hip replacements for aseptic loosening on patients in whom the primary operation details were available. Their mean age was 69 years (SD12) with 43% male and 57% right-sided procedures. 205 patients responded to our questionnaires (209/275 hips, 76%). Unfortunately 19 patients had died, 4 had dementia and 13 declined to participate. We were unable to contact a further 33.Grouping by approach, 20% (43/209) had primary and revision lateral approaches, 20% (43/209) had primary lateral and revision posterior and 60% (123/209) had both primary and revision via posterior approaches. The WOMAC and OHS were significantly better in patients who had a posterior approach for both primary and revision surgery, compared to those that did not (OHS p=0.028, WOMAC p=0.026). We found no significant differences in pain, satisfaction or health-related quality of life between the groups.
Conclusions
Registry data may help further explore the relationship between surgical approach and outcome in revision hip surgery. A randomised controlled trial of the posterior versus lateral approach for revision surgery would provide a definitive answer.
Level of Evidence
2b - retrospective cohort study
Disclosures
No financial disclosures or conflicts of interests from any authors
